1. Field of the Invention
The present invention generally relates to a conversation type inquiry-and-answer system employed in a diagnosing apparatus or the like, and more particularly, to the improvement of the inputting system of the inquiry-and-answer system.
The inquiry-and-answer system is designed to process data in a conversation manner between an operator and the system on the basis of a knowledge data base which is comprised of a first memory for storing information such as facts and rules and a second memory for storing the contents of inquiries and their responses. The present invention further relates to the editing system of the above-mentioned knowledge data base (adding and erasing system of the facts and rules).
2. Description of the Prior Art
In recent years, various kinds of expert systems have been developed which, based on computer systems, are able to make inferences by the utilization of professional knowledge as data base.
Along with the expert systems referred to above, the present invention has been designed, and shown in FIG. 5, with a long-term storage area 12 having the rules and facts already stored in it, and a short-term storage area 13 that stores facts during the inference by the system while the operator makes responses to inquiries. The internal structure of the inquiry is determined on the basis of the rules and facts stored in the aforementioned two storage areas. It is to be noted here that the internal structure mentioned above represents a form of descriptive facts in the interior of the present invention as exemplified in FIG. 2. The flow-chart of FIG. 8 indicates the processing procedure of an inputted sentence in a prior art expert system. In step S32, a sentence is inputted by the operator. For example, the sentence is "Mori is to go out of his business trip at 9 o'clock". (an English version for a Japanese sentence of "Mori ga 9 ji ni shuccho suru") is disassembled into elements to read "Mori/ is/ to/ go/ out/ on/ his/ business/ trip/ at/ 9/ o'clock". (an English version for a Japanese sentence of "Mori/ ga/ 9/ ji/ ni/ shuccho/ suru"). Then, in step S33, the inputted sentence is analyzed from the view-point of syntax and the relative connection between the elements to read "Mori is/ to go out/ on his business trip/ at 9 o'clock". (an English version for a Japanese sentence of "Mori ga/ 9 ji ni/ shuccho suru"). Thereafter, each elements is interpreted in step S34 in the manner as follows;
Mori.fwdarw.ag., 9.fwdarw.time, at.fwdarw.conjunction, etc. so that the internal structure with respect to the inputted sentence is determined in step S35.
In the prior art expert system, however, if the response from the operator does not satisfy even one of the various conditions to be met in order to analyze the meaning of the outputted sentence, the same inquiry is repeatedly given to the operator until a correct an accurate answer to the inquiry is obtained.
For example, in an expert system for use in a business trip application, if the operator makes an abbreviated response such as "Mori does." (an English version for a Japanese sentence of "Mori desu") or "Mori." (an English version for a Japanese sentence of "Mori") to an inquiry from the system for example, "Who goes out on a business trip?" (an English version for a Japanese sentence of "Darega shuccho shimasuka"), the analysis of the meaning of the response cannot be made, and subsequently the system cannot extract the necessary facts from the response. Therefore, in the prior art system, if the case as described above occurs, the same inquiry is repeated again and again to obtain the correct answer, the correct answer being "Mori goes out on a business trip." (an English version for a Japanese sentence of "Mori ga shuccho shimasu"), or comments for more correct answer are generated.
As is described above, the prior art expert system requires an accurate and correct answer to be given by the operator to an inquiry from the system. A correct and accurate answer to the inquiry, namely, a correct answer without using an abbreviation is a must for the prior art expert system even in the case where the answer is not directly related to the fact the system desires to know. Therefore, it has been an overburden to answer the inquiries in the prior art expert system.
In addition to the above-described expert system to be used in an application for a business trip, other kinds of expert systems such as a reservation system or a diagnosing device have been proposed. The expert system of this kind has two storage areas, i.e., the short-term storage the area for temporarily storing contents of inquiries from the system and the responses by the operator the the inquiries and the long term storage area for storing rules and facts to be employed during the inferences. The method for storing in and referring to these two storage areas are precisely distinguished from each other.
More specifically, data are stored in the short-term storage area, but not directly by the operator, as the operator makes a response to an inquiry during the inference.
Moreover, only the facts belonging to the area where the inference is directed to are referred to. On the other hand, in the long-term storage area of the expert system, rules and facts which are referred to during the reference can be written into directly by the operator by using a knowledge editor (editing program).
The editing or the knowledge data base being conducted in the conventional manner is shown in the flow-chart of FIG. 4, where fresh facts and rules are added to the data base or some of the facts or rules already stored in the data base are erased from the data base.
Specifically, the knowledge editor (editing program) is started-up at step n1. In step n2, rules and facts are added or erased directly to or from the long-term storage area. After completing the addition or the erasure of the rules and the facts, the inference part, namely, the inference program is started at step n4, so that the added or the erased rules and facts are verified. In other words, the system detects whether or not the added or erased rules and facts match the already-stored rules and facts, in steps n5 and n6. If the added or erased rules and facts match the already-stored rules and facts, the inference part is finished in step n8. On the contrary, if the added or erased rules and facts do not match the already-stored rules and facts, the inference part is finished in step n7, and the flow is returned to step n1.
As is clear from the foregoing description, upon editing the knowledge data base in the prior art expert system, if the verification of the added or erased rules and facts results in a negative, the knowledge editor should be operated and completed again along with the inference part. Therefore, it has been considerably difficult in the prior art expert system to edit the knowledge data base easily.